In our first ever sitting, we workshopped each of the portfolios and it was explained that each Executive Minister of State now has responsibilities to achieve outcomes for the Peoples of the Euahlayi Nation. [www.euahlayipeoplesrepublic.mobi]

Everyone understands the enormous challenges ahead but has concluded that this is what our ancestors would want and our current generations need. We are no longer beggars in our country. We will no longer stand for British imposed dictatorship.

In asserting our right to govern, we as the Executive Council of State know full well that our first endeavour will be to show true and inspired leadership. We have been silent for too long and now that we are truly beginning to understand our rights under International law we will make very deliberate moves that enhances our ability to govern in our way according to our Law and customs, combined with modernity, which we will adapt to our ways of governing, including international human rights standards. This governance will be clearly spelt out in our Constitution when it is presented to the Euahlayi populace for discussion. When we are satisfied, it will be out to a referendum for the Euahlayi Peoples to vote on.

As for our relationship with the Commonwealth of Australia and its States, Territories and Great Britain, we adopt the view that they are Foreign States who illegally invaded our Lands and Territories when they came here on their boats. Our position is that any engagement with them in the near future will be done solely through Treaty, which we will register with the United Nations for the world to see.

We have informed the United Nations Secretary General of our actions as we do anticipate rejection of our assertion and right to self-determination, but as the Executive Council of State concluded, this is our liberation struggle and we must accept the challenge.

This is our future and it is recognised in international law that we have a right to an identified nationality and citizenship; we have a right to speak our language; we have the right to benefit from the natural occurring resources, including all waters on, in and under our lands which will provide for the economic sustainability for our Peoples; we have the right to control our airspace and we have a right to our spirituality, religion and ancient culture.

This right of self-government is the core of the right of self-determination and are entrenched within the United Nations Conventions and other General Assembly resolutions. We do not rely on the ambitions that are set down in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It is our considered view that any policy decisions made by the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs and his personally chosen Indigenous cohorts, will not be accepted as having any effects on and within the Euahlayi Nation State.

Our Declaration of Independence triggers the Act of State Doctrine and, as was determined in the High Court Mabo Judgement (No. 2) the contest of sovereignty is not justiciable in the Australian municipal courts.

Having looked at the international laws, we understand the complex nature of the Australian and British assertion of Territorial Sovereignty over our Lands, water and natural resources, but the fact that we have a clear and plain boundary between the Euahlayi and other Aboriginal Nation States means ambiguity is of no concern.

The Australian and British claims to sovereignty are of a brittle skeletal framework. It is in the interest of the leaders of the modern Australian State to now come to the table and negotiate, so that they can end confusion before they lose sight of the real issues confronting them. Sitting silent, thinking that by ignoring what is happening beneath their noses is but a pie in the sky dream, will be their failings.

All persons, be they Aboriginal, Non-Aboriginal, will be catered for in the new Euahlayi Peoples Republic. Changes will occur, but future community consultations on the new State amongst the population and business houses will settle any fears that peoples may have and answer their questions.

We must impress that one of the core tenets of our culture is to look after people and families.

As instructed by Dept of Bee Pee (Border Protection) under Minister Scrotum Morrison, I heard Serco staff speak of ‘detainees’ today – no longer ‘clients’ (another objectifying objectionable term). They were referring to gracious & beautiful PEOPLE – the families kept inside Inverbrackie Detention Centre (South Australia) including the Iranian teenage girls who were waiting nearby for visitors to arrive; the 3 week old baby girl; the 7 week old baby boy; their Tamil & Persian parents; the 7 yr old girl who sang “Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree” to me; the 3 widows each travelling with 4 children; the Tamil father travelling with his young son, grieving for his wife & 3 daughters who live daily with the risk of authorised & targetted violence, arrest, torture, rape & murder of Tamils in their beautiful homeland, Sri Lanka.

Tell Me About: Refugees with Adverse Security Assessments

1. What is the situation for refugees with adverse security assessments?

As of May 2013 there are 56 refugees in immigration detention facilities in Australia who have been denied a protection visa as a result of receiving an adverse security assessment by the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). A number of these individuals are entering their fourth year in detention.

There are also seven young children of parents who have received adverse security assessments being detained. Two children were born in immigration detention.

Refugees with adverse security assessments cannot be returned to their country of origin as they have been found to have a well-founded fear of persecution. Present government policy requires that they remain in immigration detention facilities unless and until a third country agrees to resettle them. The chances of third country resettlement for a refugee with an adverse security assessment are unlikely. As a result these individuals face indefinite detention. Refugees who have received an adverse security assessment have not been charged with or convicted of any crime. They are being detained on the basis of an assessment that they pose a risk to security.

2. What is the security assessment requirement?

Previously most classes of visas, including protection visas, contained a requirement that the applicant meet public interest criteria 4002 (the security requirement). Public interest criteria 4002 required that an applicant not be assessed by ASIO to be a risk to security. Security is defined in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth) (ASIO Act) to mean the protection of Australia from activities such as espionage, politically motivated violence, the promotion of communal violence and acts of foreign interference.[1]

In October 2012 the High Court of Australia in Plaintiff M47/2012 v Director General of Security & Ors[2] held that the security requirement was invalid on the basis that it was inconsistent with the provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Government has not yet announced a response to the High Court’s decision.

3. Are refugees provided with reasons for their adverse security assessment?

Under the ASIO Act a person who is the subject of an adverse security assessment is ordinarily provided with a statement that sets out information that ASIO has relied upon to make the determination.[3] However, refugees in immigration detention who have received an adverse security assessment are not provided with this type of statement. This is because the requirement to do so under the ASIO Act does not extend to a person who is not an Australian citizen or a holder of a permanent visa or special purpose visa.[4]

4. Can refugees seek review of an adverse security assessment?

Refugees have limited opportunities to seek review of an adverse security assessment.

While the Security Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) has the power to review adverse security assessments, access to the AAT is denied to people who are not Australian citizens or holders of a permanent visa or a special purpose visa.[5] Accordingly, refugees with adverse security assessments cannot access merits review in the AAT.

Further, although the High Court of Australia has held that ASIO decisions are subject to judicial review, the ability of ASIO to withhold from an applicant and the court the information on which it has relied means that challenging that information is virtually impossible.

On 16 October 2012 the Australian Government announced an independent review process for refugees who have been refused a permanent visa as a result of an adverse security assessment by ASIO. The Government appointed the Hon. Margaret Stone as the Independent Reviewer for Adverse Security Assessments.

The Independent Reviewer is required to examine all the material relied upon by ASIO in making the security assessment and to provide an opinion to the Director-General of Security on whether the assessment is an appropriate outcome based on the material ASIO relied upon. The Independent Reviewer will then make recommendations to the Director-General of Security.

Under this review process ASIO is required to provide an unclassified written summary of reasons for the decision to issue an adverse security assessment to the Independent Reviewer on the basis that it can be provided to the refugee.

5. What are the Commission’s concerns?

Transparency of the ASIO security assessment process

The Commission is concerned about the lack of transparency of the ASIO security assessment process. Under the new Independent Reviewer process refugees are provided with an unclassified written summary of reasons for the decision to issue an adverse security assessment. However, there is limited information available about the content of the summaries of reasons. In particular, it is unclear whether they will set out any details about the information that ASIO relied upon to make the adverse assessment.

The Commission is concerned that a failure to provide sufficient details about the information relied upon by ASIO could amount to a lack of procedural fairness and could prevent a blatant error, such as an error of identification, being identified. Furthermore, it may lead to a breach of article 9(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which requires a person who is arrested to be provided with reasons for their arrest.[6]

Review of adverse security assessments

The Commission is concerned that refugees have limited avenues to seek review of an adverse security assessment. Refugees who receive an adverse security assessment may face indefinite detention, potential removal from Australia, and separation from family members. Any review mechanism must adequately reflect the seriousness of these consequences.

The Commission has welcomed the Australian Government’s appointment of an Independent Reviewer for Adverse Security Assessments. The appointment is an important acknowledgment of the need for greater transparency and accountability in the application of ASIO security assessments to asylum seekers and refugees. However, a non-statutory review mechanism with non-binding recommendations does not adequately reflect the gravity of the consequences of an adverse security assessment.

In May 2013 the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs recommended that the Australian Government enshrine in stand-alone legislation the role, responsibilities and functions of the Independent Reviewer.[7] The Commission supports this recommendation.

Indefinite detention

Refugees with adverse security assessments and their children remain indefinitely detained in closed immigration detention facilities. Some are detained in high security immigration detention centres such as Villawood IDC; extremely restrictive environments in which to hold people who could be facing a very long period in detention. While others are detained in lower security immigration detention facilities with less restrictive physical environments, they nevertheless remain detained and are not free to come and go.

The Commission is concerned that their detention could amount to arbitrary detention in breach of article 9 of the ICCPR and article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

6. What does the Commission recommend?

Providing refugees who have received adverse security assessments sufficient information to enable them to understand the information that ASIO relied upon in making the determination.

Extending access to merits review in the AAT to refugees who are the subject of an adverse security assessment. This recommendation has also been made by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs[8] and the Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Immigration Detention Network.[9]

Establishing a role of a Special Advocate to appear in review proceedings where there is a public interest or national security reason to withhold part or all of the adverse security assessment from a refugee.

Durable solutions

The Commission recommends that the Australian Government escalate efforts to find safe third countries for resettlement of refugees who have received adverse security assessments, and explore appropriate residence options in Australia where resettlement within a reasonable time is not possible. The Commission also recommends that the Australian Government inform each individual on a regular basis of the steps taken to secure durable solutions and the prospects of success.

Alternatives to indefinite closed detention

The Commission recommends that the Australian Government consider and utilise alternatives to indefinite detention in closed immigration detention facilities.

Each refugee who has received an adverse security assessment should be individually assessed as to the risk they pose to the Australian community.

That a person has received an adverse security assessment from ASIO for the purposes of a permanent visa does not necessarily mean that they pose such a significant risk to the Australian community to justify indefinite closed detention.

Alternatives to closed immigration detention may include community detention or a bridging visa, if necessary with strict conditions to mitigate any identified risks an individual may pose. For example, conditions might include a requirement to reside at a specified location, curfews, travel restrictions, regular reporting and possibly even electronic monitoring.

In addition to community detention and bridging visas, there is considerable scope for the Australian Government to develop and expand use of other alternatives to holding people in closed detention facilities for indefinite periods. These might include, for example, transforming the use of low security immigration detention facilities into open centres, where individuals have freedom of movement during the day with the imposition of a night time curfew if considered necessary.

7. Useful links

Australian Human Rights Commission submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in its Inquiry into the Migrationand Security Legislation Amendment (Review of Security Assessments) Bill2012

This long march
towards death
must be halting
the dark blue
jet-black signs of dizziness
need to change color

this unwavering pain
above the rooftops
of our hearts
must be mutated
into an explosive thinking
obsessive and fiery
glowing
on the anvil
of the class struggle
as expected as a sunrise
hot like a tear
on our cheek
after the day’s wage
of terror

this wild path
towards death
must be stopped
by an exquisite dawn
of those dispossessed
by a red raising
of our soul
that will not allow
the preambles of injustice
to be done volumes of analgesia.

I have been thinking of this report and thinking of how quickly this was all silenced. I am thinking of those who are suffering such horrors still and anew. With much love and determination to fight for you. Janet

Manus Island detainees ‘raped and abused’ with full knowledge of staff

Whistleblower who worked at Manus Island detention centre in Papua New Guinea says it is not fit to ‘serve as a dog kennel’

Detainees on Manus island have been raped and abused with the full knowledge of staff, a former senior guard at the Australian processing centre has claimed.

Speaking to SBS’s dateline on Tuesday, the whistleblower alleged that repeated incidents of rape and assault occurred on the PNG regional processing centre and condemned the facilities as not even fit to “serve as a dog kennel”.

Rod St George, the former G4S security senior manager on the island, claimed that assault victims were knowingly left in the same compound as their abusers as there are not adequate facilities to separate them.

“There was nothing that could be done for these young men who were considered vulnerable, which in many cases is just a euphemism for men who have been raped,” he said.

Adding: “We might separate people in those circumstances on the mainland, but there aren’t any facilities at Manus to do that, so these people who have been assaulted are forced to remain back in the tent.”

The whistleblower also said that self harm and suicide attempts on the island were “very common – almost daily” . He said: “I’ve never seen human beings so destitute, so helpless and so hopeless before. I took the position with every intent of making the place a safer environment, but it proved quite rapidly to be an impossibility. In Australia the facility couldn’t even serve as a dog kennel. The owners would be jailed.”

He also claimed that a number of detainees had intimidated others into self-harming, and said that one detainee had been left injured after others had been “pouring solvents in his ear for some time”.

The immigration minister Tony Burke confirmed on Wednesday morning that despite St George’s allegations the government still plans to transfer asylum seekers to Manus under its draconian new “PNG solution” within a few weeks.

Burke, who is travelling to offshore detention facilities at Manus and Nauru on Wednesday, said he had had a “direct conversation” with the whistleblower and was starting to “work through these issues”.

Speaking on ABC radio, Burke described the allegations as “horrific”. He said that during his conversation with St George the whistleblower had made specific allegations, including that it was impossible to separate detainees if abuse allegations were made. He said he would be examining them directly.

He added: “He [St George] thought some of that may have actually been addressed since he left, but not sure whether it’s been done to the full extent possible. I’ll be in Manus for the next couple of days, and I’ll have a look for myself.”

The news comes as another boat carrying asylum seekers bound for Christmas Island sunk off the coast of Java on Tuesday night. The Australian Maritime Authority has said there were up to 100 people on board. Three deaths have been reported. The Indonesian search and rescue agency are mounting an operation in response.

Asked to comment on the allegations made by the whistleblower, a spokesman for Diac said: “The department takes all allegations of this nature seriously, and has initiated a process to obtain the full and specific details made Mr St George, so we can investigate his claims.”

The spokesman continued: “The department is unaware of the claims on SBS dateline of “unreported acts of self harm” which are alleged to be “off the scale”. Suicide attempts or incidents of self harm at the centre and any allegation of misconduct is taken seriously, and we encourage anybody with information about these allegations or other allegations to contact the department so we can investigate.”

He said that the department was aware of one allegation of sexual assault in the Manus processing centre, but said the detainee did not press charges when interviewed by the PNG police. He said the department had seen no allegations of rape in the processing centre.

“Rape is a criminal offence in PNG. Any claim will be reported to police for investigation – transferees are encouraged to report personal safety concerns immediately,” he said.

Hello peoples – this article written by Nick Olle is comprehensive in terms of understanding the actualities of so called ‘advanced screenings’ and the lived and terrifying effects on people seeking safety. The so called ‘authorities’ are not only secretive or silent about what they are doing to asylum seekers but are using speed to circumvent any assistance or advocacy that may be possible for those being ‘screened’! This too amounts to what i see as war crimes by the Australian government against a number of groups of people fleeing persecution – including Tamils, Iranian and Vietnamese peoples. Note too that Morrisson has announced that anyone arriving from Sri Lanka seeking refuge will be immediately deported…. Janet

Operation Enhanced Screenings – Nick Olle

Interrogated without a lawyer and sent back en masse to the country they risked their lives to flee — Australia is expanding its controversial fast-track “enhanced screening process”.

As many as 30 unaccompanied Vietnamese men were deported from Perth this week – most of them after only a single interview with two immigration officials, without a lawyer present.

The move signals that Australia’s controversial “enhanced screening process” – previously known to be applied to Sri Lankan asylum seekers – is now being broadened to include Vietnamese.

Most Vietnamese nationals held in Australian immigration detention are seeking asylum on the basis of religious or political persecution; they cite abuses against Catholics and dissidents in their homeland, a single-party Communist state.

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection has confirmed to refugee advocates names of at least 20 deportees. Some of the men were transferred from detention in Darwin to Western Australia’s Yongah Hill detention centre immediately before the removal process began.

At least some of those deported had also been interviewed two months ago, with the permission of the Australian government, by Vietnamese officers from Section A18 of the Ministry of Public Security. Officially, the A18 is Vietnam’s Office of Controlling Exit and Entry, but it is widely known as a secret police force that also monitors and disciplines Vietnamese citizens.

On Wednesday, an advocate contacted to confirm the reports told The Global Mail:

“It seems they were bussed out of [Yongah Hill] last night and don’t know what happened next, but can only imagine they are back in [Vietnam] by now. People are in shock. I have various reports of 20 or 25 or 30 or 40, don’t know. Some say they were mainly people who were exposed to the [Vietnamese] police and signed something with them. They were coerced into signing things they didn’t understand – it is just bad news.

“[The immigration department] has only acknowledged receiving lawyer/advocate requests to talk to them before their deportation, but no actual news of what happened to them, and no contact was made.

“The closest equivalent in the criminal justice system would be if a police officer conducted the initial police interview of a suspect without a lawyer present, decided that the suspect was guilty and so dispensed with the courts …”

− Rachel Ball, HRLC

“Very wishful thinking is that they could be on [Christmas Island] but I think I am deceiving myself with this small chance of hope. So they were given no notice at all, and were not allowed to call or talk to anyone once they were locked in the room. Information blackout for them and us.”

Around the time of the A18 interviews at the detention centre, one Vietnamese detainee tried to hang himself and another five successfully escaped, though they were later recaptured.

All of the unaccompanied Vietnamese men deported this week had signed protection-request forms, asking to be represented by the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre (RILC), according to asylum-seeker advocates.

Under the “enhanced screening process”, introduced a year ago by the Labor government, two officials from Australia’s immigration department conduct an initial interview with asylum seekers – who may not be informed of their legal rights – and, on the basis of that interview, decide whether they are eligible to make a claim for refugee status. If the answer is no, they are scheduled for deportation.

Rachel Ball, Director of Advocacy and Campaigns at the Human Rights Law Centre said: “The closest equivalent in the criminal justice system would be if a police officer conducted the initial police interview of a suspect without a lawyer present, decided that the suspect was guilty and so dispensed with the courts, judges, juries, rules of evidence and appeals mechanisms and just sent the accused to prison.”

More than 1,000 Sri Lankans have already been deported under this process, according to a critical Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) report released on October 22. The report raises several concerns with the enhanced screening process, including its failure to offer detainees legal representation or other normal safeguards, such as a written record of the reasons for the decision, and the fact that the screening interviews, “may be brief and not sufficiently detailed or probing to ensure that all relevant protection claims are raised”.

The UNHCR has labelled the enhanced screening process “unfair and unreliable”.

Shayla Strapps, CEO and principal solicitor of the Perth-based organisation CASE For Refugees, told The Global Mail: “I’m not sure what label government is putting on this process. Enhanced screening was essentially brought in for Sri Lankans. They [the government] just say they are trying to move those with no claim offshore quickly.”

Strapps adds, “Our concern is in relation to those who have been screened out – with no access to lawyers, there is a serious risk of refoulement.” Under the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which Australia has signed, “No Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”

The RILC frequently intervenes on behalf of screened-out asylum seekers who it deems have a legitimate case for protection. The Global Mail has spoken to one Vietnamese family in a Darwin immigration facility, who were saved from imminent deportation thanks to the intervention of the centre, following initial intervention by advocacy groups.

“They [immigration] did it on a weekend and they didn’t have request forms signed so we didn’t have time to get to them.”

− Nam Pham, Vietnamese community leader

Perth-based Vietnamese community leader Nam Pham calls advocates’ work with asylum seekers “a race against time”. He cites the example of two brothers recently deported from Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre: “They [immigration] did it on a weekend and they didn’t have request forms signed so we didn’t have time to get to them.”

Pham is in intermittent contact with one of the brothers back in Vietnam, who he says is being harassed and “consistently asked to go and see the police”.

And those left behind in detention – even those who’ve been “screened in” for further consideration of their asylum claim – are “scared and panicked”, Pham says.

“They think they could be next [to be deported].”

Another source reported on Thursday that the deportees had arrived at Ho Chi Minh Airport. In Yongah Hill detention centre, detainees have heard there may be weekly removals to Vietnam.

The office of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Scott Morrison has not replied to requests for comment from The Global Mail.

In his October 18 briefing, Morrison referred to enhanced screening of Sri Lankans who had arrived by boat as a success, saying that “Under Operation Sovereign Borders we are taking a much stronger position on these issues, we are not dealing in half measures under protest.

“I have instructed the Department to enforce the screen out procedure policy on all Sri Lankan arrivals regardless of their pathway to Australia,” Morrison said.